What worries me about the A's
The A's head into the All-Star break in the unfamilar position of non-contenders. And let's not kid ourselves. One of the many sobering bits of information I read in recent days was that the A's haven't been this far away from a playoff spot at the break since 2001, when they won just about every single game in the second half just to make the Wild Card. And that 2001 team was the most talented A's team since the 1990 World Series squad.
I understand that the Mariners may be playing a bit over their heads, based on runs scored and runs allowed, but their bullpen is pretty solid. The A's may catch Seattle, but it hardly matters, because the Angels and at least one other non-division winner will almost certainly beat them out.
So we start to look to the future, and here's what I see:
The A's pitching situation is not as dire as it has looked in recent weeks. Dan Haren has been the best starter in the league, and even assuming he regresses, is a legitimate ace. Joe Blanton is a very solid starter when he has his usual control. Chad Gaudin may struggle as his innings mount, but I think he's a find for the rotation. It gets dicey after that, I'll admit, but things should be okay even if Rich Harden never throws a ball again. Loaiza will be back, and next year, will be on a salary drive. He's been very good the last couple of times he was in the last year of his contract. He should be a decent #4 starter. At that point, the team will just need to find somebody to fill the fifth slot, and that's not impossible to fill.
The bullpen has been an injury-riddled mess, with the top three guys from 2006 all missing significant time to injury and/or ineffectiveness. Casilla has been very good, though. Hopefully, the A's get the injured guys back to supplement the healthy arms who have performed well.
The pitching staff, overall, has been very good. And even without Harden, it should be a strength next year.
I'm less sanguine about the lineup. It is increasingly clear that Chavez will never be an offensive star, and he may never be more than an average hitter. Swisher is a good and versatile player, although it's not clear if he will ever be great. I like Mark Ellis a lot, for his defense and general headiness. Jack Cust has been a fun story. But really, the A's lineup bores the hell out of me. The team has too many players on the downsides of their careers (Kotsay, Kendall, Chavez apparently) and decidedly average players who don't hit enough (Johnson, Crosby). It's obvious that one of the reasons people are still mourning Milton Bradley's departure is that he, when healthy, brought a jolt of excitement that only a five-tool player can bring. The A's don't have those sorts of players, or intimidating forces like Frank Thomas last season, and so the team hopes to scratch and claw its way to three or four runs each game - if we're lucky.
There is no quick fix to this problem. Oh, fine. Kendall will leave, and should be a backup the rest of this season unless he's traded. But it's a little much to expect a rookie catcher to do too much. The A's have a lot of holes. I always chuckle when I read comments from team officials about a logjam at this position or that. What logjam? Who's so wonderful that they can't sit on the bench? I suppose we need Swisher, and nobody else can play third competently, so Chavez makes the list by default. But that's pretty much it, and Chavez is somebody I would trade for the right price.
Barton is finally hitting, so I guess we can be hopeful about that, but the farm system doesn't seem to be brimming with prospects. And that brings me to a longer-term concern. The A's farm system seems pretty barren to me. Meanwhile, I was just reading yesterday about the Yankees' AA starters. They all won't be good major leaguers, but the Evil Empire is getting smarter in its free-spending ways. This isn't good news for the A's, who have responded by acquiring a bunch of guys who make Milton Bradley look like the picture of health. That may work out at times (and Cust is a healthy example of that) but it doesn't seem like the most likely way to build a pennant winner.
There's no easy way out of this. Billy Beane faces a stiff challenge in the coming months and years. The good news is that the team should have enough pitching to stay on the fringes of contention. The bad news? They may not have enough to do more than that.
0 recs |
90 comments
Comments
Best Diary in a long time !
Wow. I think you hit the nail right on the head. We will know by July 31st if we are buyers or sellers. Either way, it will be a fun time for AN. All the trade speculation !
If we are sellers then we start playing to set up next year's team.
by thebabe on Jul 10, 2007 1:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Beane is never either
he'll buy players and sell players at an equal rate depending on what he perceives is best value. Which is the way it should be done.
by Alon on Jul 11, 2007 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a novel idea...
in response to "there's no easy way out of this" SPEND more MONEY. Buy some better players.
PS. Good realistic diary. I like it!
by IM4Oakgal on Jul 10, 2007 2:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You are correct. The A's must spend more money
and do it much smarter than teams like the Yankees. I just hope we stay away from the dogs with too many fleas. An injury-prone player is no bargain when they are not in the lineup on a regular basis.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Jul 10, 2007 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
in a spending-more-money scenario ...
... I'm actually less worried about picking up injury-prone players (who are usually cheaper, anyway, and within our current budget) than I am about Beane's dicey track record in high-ticket acquisitions/extensions.
by monkeyball on Jul 10, 2007 8:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Me too. I am just hoping we get "good" players
with proven track records rather than hoping for "great" players that are gimps, have the yips or too many DL trips.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Jul 10, 2007 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's what happens
when you look at every signing as an opportunity to save money. You miss out when the talent that meets that demand actually succeeds.
by jeepers on Jul 11, 2007 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice diary.
I agree with the overall summary but I think you're a bit bleak regarding the farm system. If I can ever finish my minor league review I'll explain why.
by grover on Jul 10, 2007 5:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Farm system
You're one of the farm system gurus, so I will defer to your knowledge.
Concerns:
- Where are the budding stars? Outside of pitching, Swisher is the only one who has developed within the A's system in recent years. A small-market team needs to develop its own hitting stars, as the team was able to do in the late 1990s with Giambi, Tejada, Chavez, et cetera. The A's just aren't catching lightning in a bottle these days.
- The scarce farm system talent leaves the team unable to trade guys for immediate help. The 2007 team appears to have too many holes for this to matter, but is this problem going to improve anytime soon?
by bear88 on Jul 10, 2007 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
have the a's drafted a 5 tools player
who has made an impact at the the big league level since grady fuson left?
by bigelephant on Jul 10, 2007 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Couple this past draft
But they'll be another 3 years or so... I think?
by Alon on Jul 11, 2007 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Buck
give him a little time. And Powell is a great hitter w/ good power potential, and Putnam could be good as well. To expect a star hitter out of the farm system on a regular basis is, simply, to expect too much. Star hitters are, as you stated, lightning in a bottle. You either catch it once in a while or you don't. The A's should be and are more focused on having a deep lineup 1-9 with all "good" players and little star power, which is an excellent way to win. Maybe you won't have that .300/.400/.600 whomper, but if instead of him and his $15m salary you can get three .270/.380/.490 guys, you're in much better shape.
And let's not forget -- Barton is still a phenomenal prospect. He has successfully hit really well at every level despite being consistently young for his league, and even with an off-year and injury he has come back strong which seems promising, because he has learned how to overcome diversity.
This isn't to say that the A's farm system is A-OK, but it's probably B-OK, if you will, and overall the fact that it regularly produces MLB players (even this year) is quite amazing.
by Alon on Jul 11, 2007 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Overcoming diversity"
It's an organizational strength.
by jeepers on Jul 11, 2007 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what worries me
- I wonder if this season has made Beane realize that injured players aren't in fact "undervalued" -- they're cheap because (unless they have a specific ailment such as Frank Thomas or Shannon Stewart has that can be alleviated by stress avoidance) they aren't worth very much. The Denorfia acquisition, though, makes me worry that perhaps this strategy will continue.
- This is my latest groundless pet theory, but I have a sneaking suspicion Beane is going to sign Kendall to a 2-year $9M extension (w/a mutual 3rd-year option) in November. I can't tell which worries me more: the possibility of that happening, or that I think it's even possible.
by monkeyball on Jul 10, 2007 7:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
to think its even possible. get help now.
by ak_A on Jul 10, 2007 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
agree
by FoolshGame22 on Jul 10, 2007 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kendall Extension in November
Is it even possible? Don't we have to offer Kendall Arbitration for this to happen. And if we offer Kendall Arbitration, don't we have to come really close to his current salary number (80%).
I think this is the reason we lost Jermaine Dye. We weren't willing to offer Dye Arbitration because he wasn't even close to being worth what we were paying him the year before. Thus, the White Sox offered Dye a 3-yr/12-15 Million deal (not exactly sure). Beane/A's couldn't even try to match or beat their offer because we lost negotiation rights w/ Dye (until May 1st of the following year).
I might be wrong / Has this rule changed?
by Colorado Fan on Jul 10, 2007 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
False
You can't reduce his salary by more than 20%THROUGH arbitration, but a free agent can sign any deal he wants at any price before arbitration is offered. The old myth that Dye couldn't have been signed is in the same class as the old myth that the A's had to trade for Kendall to get rid of Redman and Mr. Grumpy Reliever; AN legend that is not based in fact. The A's could sign Kendall to any contract prior to the arbitration deadline. If Beane signs Kendall, I am done with him.
by BlameChannel53 on Jul 10, 2007 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
AN legend on Rhodes/Redman/Kendall?
I know you believe that it's "AN legend" but I believe the trade was necessary exactly how it took place. Please help me understand why it is a myth? I just don't see another scenario where BB could have traded a crappy pitcher and a clubhouse cancer that no one wanted, while simultaneously gaining a catcher with a lifetime .300 average. How would you have envisioned getting rid of their salaries yet making sure that they are no longer on the team? What type of catcher could we have gotten and would our overall payroll costs be any lower?
The MLB average salary was 2.86 mil in 2005:
Kendall's '05 salary- 10 mil
Rhodes & Redman combined 2005 salary- 7.95 mil
-So there is a 2.05 mil difference in '05.
The MLB average salary was 2.94 in 2006:
Kendall's '06 salary- 11 mil
Rhodes & Redman combined '06- 8.2 mil
-So there is a 2.8 mil difference in '06
Okay now this part stinks but I believe it is the part that made the trade possible-
Kendall's '07 salary- 8 mil (+5 mil from Pitt)
Rhodes & Redman combined- signed new contracts totaling 1.375 mil, which further justifies the case for getting rid of them.
I believe the '07 part of Kendall's salary is the only part that is questionable about this trade. However, it was probaby the reason Pittsburgh showed interest at all. It was a creative deal where in the first two years we may have gotten a bargain and the last year we are paying for it dearly.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Jul 10, 2007 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This has been discussed many times
No reason to discuss it anymore.
by BlameChannel53 on Jul 10, 2007 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can you provide me a link somewhere?
I have never seen anything demonstrating the "legend" or "myth" part of it.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Jul 10, 2007 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know how to link
I'm pretty stupid when it comes to html (and many other things according to my wife. Grover, as well as others, have discussed this issue in diaries many times. The A's traded for Kendall because they wanted him, not because Redman and Grumpy were untradeable and owed money. If that was the case, Beane is smart enough to know that those players were sunk costs, and he simply could have released the unwanted players rather than take on Kendall's ominous contract. Of course, there are people on AN who still choose to believe the myth, but I am sure that there are people on AN who still believe the tooth fairy is real as well. Too each his own; regardless, this issue is old news and not really important. What is important is what the A's do now, because they need to find some talent if they are to compete any time in the next few years. Our competition isn't likely to get worse any time soon.
by BlameChannel53 on Jul 10, 2007 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks.
I don't agree with those who think it's a myth but I do agree that he sucks right now. If BB really wanted Kendall then the trade makes even more sense because he reduces his overall salary by dumping the sunk cost(s) onto Pittsburgh. Otherwise he releases two players, pays for their contracts and then possibly spends the full amount on his holy grail version of a catcher.
I appreciate your response and will look up some of those old discussions so that I can understand the alternate point of view better.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Jul 10, 2007 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's pretty much what I believe
I think Beane wanted Kendall and used two players he didn't want to offset some of the cost of acquiring Kendall. The myth I was referring to are the people on AN who still believe that acquiring Kendall was some sort of necessity because of Redman's and Grumpy's contracts. Old myths die hard, though. Despite several attempts to debunk the Dye myth, I still see it repeated several times a year.
by BlameChannel53 on Jul 10, 2007 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't recall
anyone claiming that it was "some sort of necessity" or that Beane didn't actually want Kendall. Normally the way this comes up is someone claims that the trade looked pretty good at the time (which I agree with; it was the practical equivalent of signing him (a top 10 catcher at that point) for 3/13) or that the attendant salary dump has to be borne in mind when evaluating Kendall's contract. The "myth of necessity" is a grover-developed strawman that very few have argued for.
by mikeA on Jul 10, 2007 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A strawman?
If you haven't seen the posts that claim, in essence, the only way Beane could have gotten rid of Redman and Rhodes was via trading for Kendall then you haven't been paying attention to AN.
by grover on Jul 10, 2007 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's an extreme minority position
It may be mostly semantics, but I think what people claim is that the trade made sense at the time, not that it was "forced" and not that Beane didn't actually want Kendall but "had" to get him.
Although, I guess people do sometimes claim that it was "the best we could have done" in that situation, which your diaries refuted pretty well, even leaving aside the specific moves you proposed.
Strawman is sort of harsh, I guess, and not quite true, but you do tend to overstate it.
by mikeA on Jul 10, 2007 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do get passionate on this subject
When the deal went down I think 98.8% of AN supported the trade. Beane wanted Kendall, after 2 and a half years it pretty much looks like a bad trade. Not many people wanted to entertain the idea that Beane may have made a bad trade after the 2005 season, which is where (as best as I can tell) the myth began that the Kendall deal was the "only" move Beane could have made.
As for the specific moves I proposed in my diary, I had been challenged to produce a realistic alternative to the trade to support my arguement.
by grover on Jul 10, 2007 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it was a fine trade...
(obviously didn't work out), but being in that 1.2% was quite prescient on your part, I must say.
by mikeA on Jul 10, 2007 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Me and monkeyball, standing alone
I'm sure there were others who felt concerned, but the simian and me were the most vocal opponents of the trade.
by grover on Jul 10, 2007 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
those were frustrating days
by monkeyball on Jul 10, 2007 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But you were strong
and would not break
by grover on Jul 10, 2007 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not unless you count "wind"
by monkeyball on Jul 10, 2007 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The wording is the key to reality vs. myth
BB didn't acquire Kendall because he had to dump the "Rhodeman" contracts. He acquired Kendall because he wanted him and he was fortunate enough to offset a good portion of his salary by trading two guys that had no place on the team anymore.
"dead salary vs. dead(er) salary"
by ohtobe21likehuston on Jul 10, 2007 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beane did have to move Rhodeman after 2004
Rhobes had burned his bridges and pissed off just about everyone while Redman never seemed to fit in.
by grover on Jul 10, 2007 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember Redman stared down Crosby after he
made a key error. I knew he was a horrible teammate at that moment. Now I would probably stare Crosby down too if I thought it would help.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Jul 10, 2007 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
I think Crosby looks like he's staring himself down most of the time, and that doesn't seem to be helping...
by Poppy on Jul 10, 2007 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
P a r a n o i a ...
Oh you mean cuz he's so purty.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Jul 10, 2007 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Notice folks....
I do not go off on my patented Kendall tangent even though this poster is basically asking for it.
This is a sign of my growth as a person.
by grover on Jul 10, 2007 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
{gives grover a cookie}
by Poppy on Jul 10, 2007 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I always confuse
grover and cookie monster too.
by oblique on Jul 10, 2007 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What a jip!
by ohtobe21likehuston on Jul 10, 2007 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you should have that growth looked at
by monkeyball on Jul 10, 2007 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you volunteering?
by grover on Jul 10, 2007 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nitpick
You can't reduce his salary by more than 20%THROUGH arbitration, but a free agent can sign any deal he wants at any price before arbitration is offered.
The maximum 20% reduction rule in arbitration only applies to players who are pre-free agency.
by Danny on Jul 10, 2007 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do Groundless Pet Theories...
...fly by night? And are they hard to upkeep or not. I got a dog I'd like to give away or trade for one of these groundless pets...
Those that defend Kendall is a little scary to me. It's okay to have one player who doesn't contribute offensively, but not on a team where he is part of a group that makes up half of the starting lineup. What is the fear that some on AN possess in letting him go? Certainly Beane has always wanted "good clubhouse guys" and may still feel burned about MB's behavior, but I think our future is bright with Suzuki, who has done very little to disuade this opinion.
I highly doubt Kendall remains by re-signing in November as you suggest unless Suzuki is traded and we get another journeyman catcher to play the role of Melhuse. In this scenario, you can only hope that Suzuki will be part of a package to bring some offensive support to make up for an older catcher's declining offensive skills. But what holes are filled? I can't imagine an outfield of Buck/Swisher/Kots changing. The infield will also remain set except possibly for 1b. I just don't get a sense that Crosby/Ellis/Chavez are going anywhere for at least one more year. Do you?
by Gerard on Jul 10, 2007 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I ain't ADVOCATING it ...
... quite the opposite.
I just think/feel that there's a good chance Beane might do it.
But I'm with BC53 -- if Beane does extend Kendall, for any length of time, at any price, I'm done as a Beane fan.
by monkeyball on Jul 10, 2007 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Me three
by andeux on Jul 10, 2007 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would guess that grover makes 4
by monkeyball on Jul 10, 2007 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Don't Know If I would Completely Give Up...
...on Beane b/c I don't think one decision should determine his fate. We know he's a progressive thinker. This move (if it takes place) would turn him sideways.
The preponderance of trading for injured players, poor FA signings, poor drafts and ultimately poor product on the field for a couple of years may sway my support of Beane. I can't argue the success of this franchise over the last 10 years b/c they have his "Beane prints" all over the place. Rome wasn't built in a day and certainly didn't crumple in one. The bigger question is wether or not this franchise is going the right direction or not. I think it still is.
by Gerard on Jul 10, 2007 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You understate my response to this scenario
I'd say that throwing a palace revolt would be a step or 3 beyond "losing me" as a fan.
by grover on Jul 10, 2007 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Totally agree
I too am worried that BB will resign kendall when he really needs to play him a lot less (3-4 times a week) and let him walk after the season.
by Jackson_A on Jul 10, 2007 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great diary....
Especially the part that REALLY bugs me....."But really, the A's lineup bores the hell out of me." If nothing else, I want the team to be fun and exciting to watch and this team can be dreadfully boring for very long stretches. Makes it tough to get into games, even some of the wins.
by OaktownPower on Jul 10, 2007 8:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
In general I agree...
I'm not worried about our pitching next year (don't forget that Dan Meyer might be available as our fifth starter). But I've been trying to picture the position players the A's are going to trot out on a regular basis next year:
1B Barton/Johnson
2B Ellis
3B Chavez
SS Crosby
LF Swisher
CF Kotsay
RF Buck
C Suzuki
DH Barton/Cust
Bench: Scutaro, Stewart???, whichever of Johnson/Cust is not playing, whoever is backing up Suzuki, ???
That does not look imposing to me at all. I love Ellis, Chavez, and Kotsay for the defense, but their offense is at best average and Chavez particularly can be an offensive void when playing hurt. Bobby Crosby is just frustrating to me on both sides of his game-- he looks like he should be the complete package, but he can't get it together on the field.
Frankly, I think we need to move some of Kotsay/Ellis/Chavez/Johnson/Crosby for some more (preferrably right-handed) thump. If we move Kotsay, then Swisher goes to CF and our hypothetical masher can hide in LF. I doubt we'll be able to afford two big mashers, but I figure that's what we're going to need to get the offense going.
My wild fantasy is that Wolff/Beane stun the baseball world and win the A-Rod sweepstakes this off-season. Maybe he'll give us a discount for letting him move back to SS :-). But I don't think even A-Rod would be worth the money he's going to get as a free agent.
by LoveDemAs on Jul 10, 2007 8:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Sadly, that probably is next year's lineup.
I would be terrified of your idea of Swish in CF but mainly because I still believe a healthy Kotsay is not necessarily a bad thing offensively or defensively.
I'm still holding out hope that Meyer is our #5 guy for next year with Madsen as another possibility. I am praying that we don't waste time with Braden, Komine and Windsor again unless their talent level drastically improves over the course of one off-season.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Jul 10, 2007 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kotsay
is a horrible player at this point. he is well below a replacement level player and is the A's version of Darren Erstad. His defense has slipped and he has a very low OBP with no power. He should be a late inning defensive replacement at best. The A's should go with this lineup next year to juice up the woeful offense:
Buck
Ellis
Swisher..CF
Cust...LF
Barton..DH
Johnson
Chavez
Furminiack
Suzuki
by DKNJ on Jul 10, 2007 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How do you know that? He just came back from
major back surgery and is probably just finishing up his own spring training. Swisher will cost us dearly in CF and Kotsay's "D" has still looked pretty good in the short time he has been back.
Look I don't Kotsay is a great player anymore. I just think his "D" outweighs Swisher's by a wide, wide margin right now. Kotsay still judges the ball off the bat very well, which should offset some of his slower movement.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Jul 10, 2007 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't "think"
by ohtobe21likehuston on Jul 10, 2007 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chris Denorfia should be the A's starting CF
given that he's much younger and, this season excepted, less injured than Kotsay. And he has similar ELQI (Erstad-Like Qualities Index-- 19th round pick, Division III college, etc). Plus he's a better hitter and not much worse in the field.
Heck, he might be the starting CF in September if his rehab goes well enough. I recall the Chron saying he'd be throwing and swinging by the All-Star break.
by PaulThomas on Jul 10, 2007 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ELQI
that sounds like something lifted from FJM (since we're using abbreviations here)...but surely someone else on the A's would do better on the ELQI than a guy who went to a D-III college...Erstad punted at Nebraska.
by Cutthemullet on Jul 11, 2007 6:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not taken directly
but it's certainly a nod to them. Great site.
by PaulThomas on Jul 11, 2007 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he's at the end of April at this point...
between the rehab in Sacramento and the playing time that I wish he didn't have here, this is much further along than his equivalent of ST. And theoretically, he should be playing better than he had ever played for us, given the lingering back pains are not an issue. Kotsay has crippled us, even though he's no longer a cripple himself.
by Cutthemullet on Jul 11, 2007 6:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I say that it would take him longer to build
strength due to his surgery. I know what we all wish but that is simply not realistic to say he should be "better than ever" right now. The rehab portion is not an exact science and many times the surgery doesn't even correct the problem.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Jul 11, 2007 7:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
considering how frustrated Kotsay was...
when he elected to get the surgery, I can't imagine how he'd react if his back problems flared up again post-surgery. Retirement, probably. As for the strength-building...didn't he progress faster than expected? He was ready before the May 31st/June 1st date when he was slated to return, wasn't he?
by Cutthemullet on Jul 11, 2007 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He will probably play through pain at some point.
Most lower back surgery successes are 50/50 when considering the long-term. Physical therapy still gives you much better odds at remaining pain free according to most medical reports I've read. I think most individuals grow impatient with the PT and have surgery once they hit a certain level of frustration.
Re: physical side. Sure. He was probably pain free but that doesn't mean that he should be expected to reach a higher level of offense within 4-6 weeks of not playing at all.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Jul 11, 2007 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Something that worries me:
I think Chavy's defense is looking less consistently Chavezian. Still better than most, and certainly better at 3rd than anyone else on the A's, but... :\
by Poppy on Jul 10, 2007 8:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Poppy
by monkeyball on Jul 10, 2007 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But he seems like a really nice guy ;-)
by ohtobe21likehuston on Jul 10, 2007 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's me in the stands,
yelling, "It's okay, Chavy, you're nice!" every time he pops out on the first pitch by a tired pitcher with bases loaded and one out. And boy, is my voice tired. ;)
by Poppy on Jul 10, 2007 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chavezian
I like that.
by CTAsGirl on Jul 10, 2007 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chavez isn't Armenian enough.
by franks a lot on Jul 10, 2007 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chavez isn't Albanian enough either
But he can fix that. I could definitely see Diego tearing up the PriPri or rocking out in the toddler park at Cornell School.
by Englishmajor on Jul 10, 2007 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yay, Cornell School!
I did one of my counseling internships there--neat school.
by Nico on Jul 10, 2007 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed about Chavez
During the Seattle series, the local TV announcers were saying that Beltre deserves to win the Gold Glove away from Chavez. They acknowledged that Chavez is still good, but said he has slipped a bit and Beltre is now better.
Sadly, it was hard to disagree. (In spite of the error Beltre made almost immediately after they jinxed him by talking about his superior defense.)
by iglew on Jul 10, 2007 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anyone who watches Chavez regularly now
has to notice that his aching body (back) has limited his range some. Still has soft hands and amazing instincts, but doesn't get to as many balls.
by RLangford on Jul 10, 2007 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
plus, the shoulder and forearms ...
... occasionally cause some really embarrassing short-arm, skip-it-off-the-grass, throwing-like-a-girl tosses.
by monkeyball on Jul 11, 2007 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've been saying this a lot lately
and just went searching for some defensive stats and found this. Not even in the top 3, which I was very surprised to see. But seeing him regularly over the years, it's clear that whatever is affecting him has caught up to his defense as well as his hitting. Still good, mind you, but just missing on stuff that we're used to seeing him get.
by sslinger on Jul 11, 2007 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Piazza should come back as DH
in the second half for the a's. putting him in the middle of this lineup makes it a whole lot better and he's going to be lot more consistent at the plate than jack cust has been. cust is still on a learning curve dealing with breaking pitches on the outside corner and cutting down on his strikeouts. i'd like to see cust play in the OF more. one of the ways to make room for Piazza is to move DJ. with Barton waiting in the wings and Cust looking like the DH of the future, it doesnt look like we'll have room for DJ after this season anyway and defensively Swisher is much better at first anyways. i know DJ is cheap and he could still turn his season around but his ultimate ceiling is lower than that of Swisher and Barton and he's one of the parts that doesnt fit on this team. plus Piazza's bat gives this lineup more balance from the right side of the plate. the yankees might be willing to give up some pitching for DJ who has raked in yankee stadium with the short porch in RF. i'd also like to see the positive influence that Piazza can bring to the clubhouse like Thomas did last year for Swish, Buck and some of the younger guys.
another point: Crosby needs to earn his job back. play Scutaro at short and get Crosby to earn his job back by getting him to go back to the basics and fixing his swing. Scutaro has shown that he can be consistent at the plate if he gets his ABs and he is acceptable defensively at SS as well.
so the lineup going into the second half:
Stewart/Buck
Kotsay/Ellis/Stewart/Kielty/Buck
Swisher
Piazza
Cust
Chavez
Ellis/Kotsay/Kielty
Scutaro/Murphy/Crosby
Kendall/Suzuki
and i'm hoping that Piazza's shoulder gets healed
in August to the point where he can start a few games behind the plate as well giving us even more roster flexibility.
this season isnt over, folks. the only reason is while there are a number of really good teams ahead of the a's, there isnt a truly dominant one. each team has its weaknesses and who knows, if the a's can get hot in the second half they can still make a run at this thing.
by oak1 on Jul 10, 2007 2:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Cust has been plenty consistent for me
Piazza 26 games, 1hr, 8 Rbi, OPS of .718. Last three years his OPS is around .800.
Cust 55 games, leads team in HR, basically tied in RBI's with guys who played 80+ games, OPS of .965
with a very consistant split of leftys at .960 and rightys at .942 OPS.
Yes he has had cold streaks and strikeout streaks but he is still GETTING on base and bringing runs in, those have not affected his overall numbers.
Pitchers do adjust but I have no reason to think that Jack can't adjust back and become even a better hitter with more AB's and learning the pitchers over time.
Now if he plays the OF every time Piazza DH's thats ok by me but do not take the bat out of his hand, and certainly don't use the excuse that he is inconsistant because he dosent hit HR's at the same pace all year.
by Anarch on Jul 10, 2007 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Kendall trade "myth"
I'm coming late to this discussion, but as a former exponent of the myth who has since come around, perhaps I can help explain.
No, it's not a straw man. Several of us, including myself, did indeed make the argument that the need to get rid of Rhodes' and Redman's bad contracts excused the mistake of taking on Kendall's bad contract. Basically, our logic was that the millions of dollars committed to players who weren't worth it (ie, Rhodes and Redman) was already committed, and all the trade did was transfer those sunk costs to a different contract for an overpaid player. Therefore, we argued, Beane shouldn't be blamed for overspending on Kendall.
The flaw in our reasoning was the idea that the money committed to Rhodes and Redman was sunk and couldn't be unsunk. In fact, as Grover argued and subsequent events proved, the R and R contracts, although not very good, were not so bad that they couldn't be unloaded. I don't know that they had much trade value in terms of actually getting much in return, but if the goal was only to get out from under the salary commitments, there were indeed teams willing to take either contract off our hands for free. Thus, trading them for a bad Kendall contract was not necessary. It was a choice.
Myself, though I didn't strongly object to the trade I never much liked Kendall. My error in evaluating the trade was underestimating the value of the Rhodes and Redman contracts, which I considered to be worth less than nothing.
by iglew on Jul 10, 2007 9:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Farm System
As Moneyball fans know, for a few years the A's draft concentrated on college players, who were then considered undervalued. Later, when the situation changed, the A's draft strategy changed and we went for high school players instead.
Since college players spend less time in the minors than high school players, this switch created a gap in our farm system -- the time after the last of the college picks come through the system but before the first of the high school picks do. This gap has been coming down the pipe for a while now, and it's what we're now seeing in our near future. Yes, it's a problem, but it's not a lasting problem. Once we get through that gap we've got prospects again.
As for the Yankees farm system, as much as I hate to say anything nice about that organization, I can't agree that they are "getting smarter". They were already smart. The team's big spending on free agents sometimes disguises it, but the Yankees farm system has traditionally been well run. Some teams succeed by spending big on free agents, some teams succeed with a well-run farm system, some do neither, and the Yankees do both.
by iglew on Jul 10, 2007 9:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
the Yanks have the distinct advantage of being able to toss bonus $$ out the window, while also spending lots of money in international players. Now that they realize this and still have their first round picks from simply staying sliiiightly more quiet on the FA front, their farm system is brimming with talent. They realized they can buy talent at every level. Kudos to Cashman.
by Alon on Jul 11, 2007 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chavvy's Defense From A Chavvy Hater
I've seen quite a few A's games this year, and I just haven't noticed the decline in his defense. I can't argue that his range may have diminished a bit, but it's not called the Hot Corner for nothing. Seems to me that position is 80% reaction time 10% range 10% arm, and Chavvy has just incredible reflexes.
Yeah, Scutaro had a tough night on Friday and made some errors and cost the A's a few runs in a game they wouldn't have won anyway. But there was both a ground ball and a pop up Scutaro didn't get to the night before, too, and that cost the A's a run in a game they eventually won 3-2.
I cringe when Chavvy's up RISP, but the guy is still the best there is at 3rd. Does Beltre have a better arm? Absolutely. I just don't care.
by solotar on Jul 11, 2007 12:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I tend to agree
I also cringe when Chavez comes up to bat in a critical moment, but I still love his defense. I can see that he may have lost a bit, but his instincts are uncanny, and as you say, that's a big part of it. He's still top-notch, defensively.
I think he also takes alot of pride in his defense, which helps. That implies that he doesn't take pride in his offense, and I'm reluctant to come right out and say that, but sometimes I wonder.
by UncleLeo on Jul 11, 2007 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If his range has diminished, then how hasn't his
defense diminished (since range is one criteria for defense)?
by Bacon on Jul 11, 2007 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 
























